Op zijn beurt schreef voormalig New York Times-correspondent Chris Hedges in juni 2016 onder de kop Shut Down the Democratic National Convention:

In our system of inverted totalitarianism, the political philosopher Sheldon Wolin pointed out, the object is to demobilize the citizenry, to render it apathetic, to convince the citizen that all political activity that does not take place within the narrow boundaries defined by the corporate state is futile. This is a message hammered into public consciousness by the corporate media, which serve as highly paid courtiers to the corporate elites. It is championed by the two parties that offer up fear of the other as their primary political platform.

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton hold the highest candidate disapproval ratings in American history—in that order. These two candidates, the system insists, are the only “rational” options. Step outside the system and you are disappeared or ridiculed. Acceptable political opinions, as Wolin wrote, are ‘measurable responses to questions predesigned to elicit them.’ We vote, in the end, for skillfully manufactured personalities. Neither Trump nor Clinton in office will hinder corporate hegemony. Nothing will change until we revolt, until we defy the corporate system, until we wake from our civic stupor. The goal of the elites is to keep us pacified.

‘The crucial element that sets off inverted totalitarianism from Nazism is that while the latter imposed a regime of mobilization upon its citizenry, inverted totalitarianism works to depoliticize its citizens, thus paying a left-handed compliment to the prior experience of democratization,’ Wolin wrote in ‘Politics and Vision.’

‘Where the Nazis strove to give the masses a sense of collective power and confidence, Kraft durch Freude (or “strength through joy”), the inverted regime promotes a sense of weakness, collective futility that culminates in the erosion of the democratic faith, in political apathy and the privatization of the self. Where the Nazis wanted a continuously mobilized society that would support its masters without complaint and enthusiastically vote “yes” at the managed plebiscites, the elite of inverted totalitarianism wants a politically demobilized society that hardly votes at all.’

an idea in metaphysical thinking holding that progress is a real concept leading to an improvement of the world. It holds that humans can, through their interference with processes that would otherwise be natural, produce an outcome which is an improvement over the aforementioned natural one.

who really governs us: showing how across the world corporations manipulate and pressurize governments, by means both legal and illegal;how protest, be it in the form of the protesters of Seattle and Genoa or the boycotting of GM foods, has become a more effective political weapon than the ballot-box; and how corporations in many parts of the world are taking over from the state responsibility for everything from providing technology for schools to health-care for the community.

assumes that the United States alone possesses the power, prestige, technology, wealth, and altruism needed to reform whole nations. It assumes that the U.S. government, having tamed its frontier and helped its people achieve unprecedented wealth and freedom… having led the free world to victory over fascism and Communism, knows how to deploy its assets to lift up the poor and oppressed. Finally, it assumes that Americans want their government to dedicate their lives fortunes, and sacred honor to that purpose.

None of these postulates is proven; in fact, every one may be false… Democracies can trample on human rights and the rule of law. Nor can we assume that all nations prefer democracy, however defined, or are moving toward the same destination. Indeed, to diagnose and prescribed remedies for all other people on earth is nothing less than to mirror the Bolsheviks, who claimed to believe that scientific law was moving the world toward Communism, but acted as though history needed their ‘help.’

Americans may well believe that their political and economic principles are universally valid. But to insist that everyone else in the world agree is to embrace the same solipsism (het geloof dat er maar een enkel bewustzijn bestaat: dat van de waarnemer. svh) that Wilson (president Woodrow Wilson. svh) did when he said that his own depth of belief (een racistische vorm van protestantisme. svh) convinced that he spoke for the American people. As a result, Global Meliorism can be woefully counterproductive. Far from persuading Chinese, Singaporeans, Iraqis, Libyans, or Russians to be ‘like us,’ our sermons about human rights, fair trade, the environment, and sexual and family issues only invite foreigners to remark on the poverty, crime, drugs, pornography, collapse of the family, inequality, and travesties of justice that characterize American society.

To assert that the U.S. government knows how to transplant democracy and kick-start economic development abroad is an even wilder leap of logic. Our half-century of experience with foreign aid has been almost a total loss, and the reason is not hard to find. It resides in the contradiction inherent in programs which purpose is to demonstrate the superiority of the free market model but whose methods are entirely statist.

Deze werkelijkheid staat mijlenver af van de kinderlijke voorstelling van zaken van opiniemakers als Hofland en Mak. Over de drijfveren van ondermeer mainstream-opiniemakers verklaarde de Amerikaanse psychologe Frances Shure: ‘Deny the evidence that is coming your way and stick to the original story, the official story and try to regain your equilibrium,’ want:

People are afraid of being ostracized, they are afraid of being alienated, they are afraid of being shunned. They are afraid of their lives being inconvenienced – they’ll have to change their lives. They are afraid of being confused. They are afraid of psychological deterioration. They are afraid of feeling helpless and vulnerable. And, they are afraid that they won’t be able to handle the feelings coming up. And none of us wants to feel helpless and vulnerable. So, we want to defend ourselves. And, the way that we often do that is with anger. Then we become angry. And, when we become angry, then we become indignant. We become offended. We want to ridicule the messenger. We want to pathologize the messenger. And, we want to censor the messenger.

Hitler not only brought unspeakable horror upon Europe but also stripped it of its sense of the tragic. Like the struggle against Nazism, all of contemporary political history would thenceforth be seen and experienced as a struggle between good and evil... Is this a regression? A relapse into the pre-tragical stage of humankind? But if so, precisely who has regressed? Is it History itself, usurped by criminals? Or is it our mode of understanding History? Often I think: tragedy has deserted us; and that may be the true punishment.

The document was a draft being revised to be consistent with the Bush doctrine of preemptive attack. The doctrine cites eight reasons under which field commanders can ask for permission to use nuclear weapons.

After public exposure, the Pentagon has hidden the Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations and three related documents, referring to this as ‘cancelling’ the documents. The decision to ‘cancel’ the documents simply removes controversial documents from the public domain and from the Pentagon's internal reading list.

Maar:

The White House and Pentagon guidance that directs the use of nuclear weapons remains unchanged by the cancellation.

‘The use of nuclear weapons represents a significant escalation from conventional warfare and may be provoked by some action, event, or threat. However, like any military action, the decision to use nuclear weapons is driven by the political objective sought.’ […] ‘Integrating conventional and nuclear attacks will ensure the most efficient use of force and provide US leaders with a broader range of strike options to address immediate contingencies (eventualiteiten. svh) […] This integration will ensure optimal targeting, minimal collateral damage, and reduce the probability of escalation.’ […] ‘Although the United States may not know with confidence what threats a state, combinations of states, or nonstate actors pose to US interests, it is possible to anticipate the capabilities an adversary might use […] These capabilities require maintaining a diverse mix of conventional forces capable of high-intensity, sustained, and coordinated actions across the range of military operations; employed in concert with survivable and secure nuclear forces’ […] ‘The immediate and prolonged effects of nuclear weapons including blast (overpressure, dynamic pressure, ground shock, and cratering), thermal radiation (fire and other material effects), and nuclear radiation (initial, residual, fallout, blackout, and electromagnetic pulse), impose physical and psychological challenges for combat forces and noncombatant populations alike. These effects also pose significant survivability requirements on military equipment, supporting civilian infrastructure resources, and host-nation/coalition assets. US forces must prepare to survive and perhaps operate in a nuclear/radiological environment.’

President John F. Kennedy had experienced in the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Chairman Lyman Lemnitzer a high level of insubordination. Lemnitzer showed in White House meetings contempt for the president. When Lemnitzer brought Kennedy the Northwoods Project to shoot down American citizens in the streets of America and to blow American airliners out of the sky in order to place the blame on Castro so that the US could invade and achieve ‘regime change,’ a popular term of the George W. Bush regime, in Cuba, President Kennedy removed Lemnitzer as chairman and sent him to Europe as head of NATO.

Kennedy did not know about Operation Gladio, an assassination program in Europe run by NATO and the CIA. Communists were blamed for Operation Gladio’s bombings of civilians in train stations in order to erode communist political influence, especially in Italy. Thus, Kennedy’s way of getting rid of Lemnitzer put Lemnitzer in charge of this program and gave Lemnitzer a way to get rid of John Kennedy.

Anyone who thinks that democratic governments would not kill their own citizens is uninformed beyond belief. If, dear reader, you are one of these gullible people, please go to the Internet and become familiar, for example, with Operation Northwoods and Operation Gladio.

‘We’ve been had!’ yelled then Navy Chief George Anderson upon hearing on October 28, 1962, how JFK ‘solved’ the missile crisis. Admiral Anderson was the man in charge of the very ‘blockade’ against Cuba.

‘The biggest defeat in our nation’s history!’ bellowed Air Force Chief Curtis Lemay, while whacking his fist on his desk.

‘We missed the big boat,’ said Gen. Maxwell Taylor after learning the details of the deal with Khrushchev.

Dobrynin, in which Kennedy stressed how fragile his brother's rule was becoming as the crisis dragged on. It was not the first time in the Kennedy presidency that Bobby had communicated this alarming message to the Russians. But in this high-stakes moment, Kennedy’s plea struck Khrushchev as especially urgent.

After the attorney general (minister van justitie. svh) paid an unofficial visit to the Soviet embassy one evening Dobrynin reported to Moscow that ‘Robert Kennedy looked exhausted. One could see from his eyes that he had not slept for days. He himself said that he had not been home for six days and nights. ‘The president is in a grave situation,’ Robert Kennedy said, ‘and he does not know how to get out of it. We are under very severe stress. In fact we are under pressure from our military to use force against Cuba. […] President Kennedy implores (smeekt. svh) chairman Khrushchev to accept his offer and to take into consideration the peculiarities of the American system. Even though the president himself is very much against starting a war over Cuba, an irreversible chain of events could occur against his will. […] If the situation continues much longer, the president is not sure that the military will not overthrow him and seize power. The American army could get out of control,’

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government… In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

In a century heavy with political ironies, there may have been none greater than this: at the end of the Cold War, as mainstream pundits hailed democracy's global triumph, a new form of governmental reason was being unleashed in the Euro-Atlantic world that would inaugurate democracy's conceptual unmooring and substantive disembowelment. Within thirty years, Western democracy would grow gaunt (verschraald. svh), ghostly, its future increasingly hedged (omheind. svh) and improbable.

More than merely saturating (doordrenken. svh) the meaning or content of democracy with market values, neoliberalism assaults the principles, practices, cultures, subjects, and institutions of democracy understood as rule by the people…

The claim that neoliberalism is profoundly destructive to the fiber and future of democracy in any form is premised on an understanding of neoliberalism as something other than a set of economic policies, an ideology, or a resetting of the relation between state and economy. Rather, as a normative order of reason developed over three decades into a widely and deeply disseminated governing rationality, neoliberalism transmogrifies (veranderd. svh) every human domain and endeavor, along with humans themselves, according to a specific image of the economic. All conduct is economic conduct; all spheres of existence are framed and measured by economic terms and metrics, even when those spheres are not directly monetized. In neoliberal reason and in domains governed by it, we are only and everywhere homo oeconomicus, which itself has a historically specific form. Far from Adam Smith’s creature propelled by the natural urge to ‘truck, barter, and exchange,’ today’s homo oeconomicus is an intensely constructed and governed bit of human capital tasked with improving and leveraging its competitive positioning and with enhancing its (monetary and nonmonetary) portfolio value across all of its endeavors and venues. These are also the mandates, and hence the orientations, contouring the projects of neoliberalized states, large corporations, small businesses, nonprofits, schools, consultancies, museums, countries, scholars, performers, public agencies, students, websites, athletes, sports teams, graduate programs, health providers, banks, and global legal and financial institutions.

All over the place, from the popular culture to the propaganda system, there is constant pressure to make people feel that they are helpless, that the only role they can have is to ratify decisions and to consume.

When the commitment to individual and collective self-rule and the institutions supporting it are overwhelmed and then displaced by the encomium (lofrede. svh) to enhance capital value, competitive positioning, and credit ratings? What happens when the practices and principles of speech, deliberation, law, popular sovereignty, participation, education, public goods, and shared power entailed in rule by the people are submitted to economization? These are the questions animating this book.

To pose these questions is already to challenge commonplace notions that democracy is the permanent achievement of the West and therefore cannot be lost; that it consists only of rights, civil liberties, and elections; that it is secured by constitutions combined with unhindered markets; or that it is reducible (herleidbaar. svh) to a political system maximizing individual freedom in a context of state-provisioned order and security. These questions also challenge the Western liberal democratic conceit (waan. svh) that humans have a natural and persistent desire for democracy. They presume instead that democratic self-rule must be consciously valued, cultured, and tended by a people seeking to practice it and that it must vigilantly resist myriad economic, social, and political forces threatening to deform or encroach upon it. They presume the need to educate the many for democracy, a task that grows as the powers and problems to be addressed increase in complexity. Finally, these questions presume that the promise of shared rule by the people is worth the candle (de inspanning waard zijn. svh), both an end in itself and a potential, though uncertain, means to other possible goods, ranging from human thriving to planetary sustainability. Hardly the only salient political value, and far from insurance against dark trajectories, democracy may yet be more vital to a livable future than is generally acknowledged within Left programs centered on global governance, rule by experts, human rights, anarchism, or undemocratic versions of communism.

None of these contestable presumptions have divine, natural, or philosophical foundations, and none can be established through abstract reasoning or empirical evidence. They are convictions animated by attachment, scholarly contemplation of history and the present, and argument, nothing more.

Actions speak louder than mere words, and U.S. President Barack Obama has now acted, not only spoken. His action is to refuse to discuss with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Russia’s biggest worry about recent changes in America’s nuclear strategy — particularly a stunning change that is terrifying Putin.

Russia’s concern is that, if the ‘Ballistic Missile Defense’ or ‘Anti Ballistic Missile’ system, that the United States is now just starting to install on and near Russia’s borders, works, then the United States will be able to launch a surprise nuclear attack against Russia, and this system, which has been in development for decades and is technically called the ‘Aegis Ashore Missile Defense System,’ will annihilate the missiles that Russia launches in retaliation, which will then leave the Russian population with no retaliation at all, except for the nuclear contamination of the entire northern hemisphere, and global nuclear winter, the blowback from America’s onslaught against Russia, which blowback some strategists in the West say would be manageable problems for the U.S. and might be worth the cost of eliminating Russia.

That theory, of a winnable nuclear war (which in the U.S. seems to be replacing the prior theory, called ‘M.A.D.’ for Mutually Assured Destruction) was first prominently put forth in 2006 in the prestigious U.S. journal Foreign Affairs, headlining ‘The Rise of Nuclear Primacy’ and which advocated for a much bolder U.S. strategic policy against Russia, based upon what it argued was America’s technological superiority against Russia’s weaponry and a possibly limited time-window in which to take advantage of it before Russia catches up and the opportunity to do so is gone.

Paul Craig Roberts was the first reporter in the West to write in a supportive way about Russia’s concerns that Barack Obama might be a follower of that theory. One of Roberts’s early articles on this was issued on 17 June 2014 and headlined ‘Washington Is Beating The War Drums,’ where he observed that ‘US war doctrine has been changed. US nuclear weapons are no longer restricted to a retaliatory force, but have been elevated to the role of preemptive nuclear attack.’

Russia’s President Vladimir Putin has tried many times to raise this issue with President Obama, the most recent such instance being via a public statement of his concern, made on May 27th. Apparently, the public statement by Antonov on June 5th is following up on that latest Putin effort, by Antonov’s announcement there that Obama now explicitly refuses to discuss Putin’s concerns about the matter.

The fact that these efforts on the part of the Russian government are via public media instead of via private conversations (such as had been the means used during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, when the shoe was on the other foot and the U.S. President was concerned about the Soviet President’s installation of nuclear missiles 90 miles from the U.S. border) suggests that Mr. Obama, unlike U.S. President John Fitzgerald Kennedy in 1962, refuses to communicate with Russia, now that the U.S. is potentially in the position of the aggressor.

Russia is making its preparations, just in case it will (because of the Aegis Ashore system) need to be the first to attack. However, some knowledgeable people on the subject say that Russia will never strike first. Perhaps U.S. President Obama is proceeding on the basis of a similar assumption, and this is the reason why he is refusing to discuss the matter with his Russian counterpart. However, if Mr. Obama wishes to avoid a nuclear confrontation, then refusing even to discuss the opponent’s concerns would not be the way to go about doing that. Obama is therefore sending signals to the contrary — that he is preparing a nuclear attack against Russia — simply by his refusal to discuss the matter. In this case, his action of refusal is, itself, an answer to Putin’s question, like slamming the door in Putin’s face would be. It’s a behavioral answer, instead of a merely verbal one.

The geostrategist John Helmer discussed on May 30th the question of when the ‘Trigger Point’ will likely be for Putin to decide whether there is no reasonable alternative but to launch — and for him then to launch — World War III.

And so Big Brother continues.......Binnenkort ook bij u in de buurt.....net als de het gebruiken van drones e.d.Stop Police From Using a Device That Can Take Money Out of Your Bank Accounthttps://actionsprout.io/C9B658/initial